Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00021667-CU-WM-CTL, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 04, 2024

01/05/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Writ of Mandate Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00021667-CU-WM-CTL WILLIAMS VS DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Respondent Director of Department of Motor Vehicles ('DMV')'s demurrer is SUSTAINED.

Respondent's request for judicial notice is granted.

A demurrer shall be sustained if the pleading 'does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) To test the sufficiency of a cause of action, the court treats as true 'all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.' (Centinela Freeman Emergency Medical Associates v. Health Net of California, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 994, 1010.) The court may also consider matters that have been judicially noticed. (Id.) The court shall give the complaint a 'reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.' (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) Here, Respondent demurs to the entire verified petition on the grounds that Petitioner's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The court agrees. Petitioner's sole claim is for review of the DMV's August 6, 2020 decision to revoke Petitioner's driver's license after a hearing that occurred on July 20, 2020. At best, Petitioner had 94 days from the date notice of the decision was sent on August 7, 2020 to petition for judicial review of the decision. (Veh. Code, §§ 14401, 14105.4.) Instead, Petitioner waited over two years to seek judicial review, well outside the applicable statute of limitations period.

However, the court is inclined to give Petitioner leave to amend. For pleading purposes, the court believes Petitioner may be able to plead sufficient facts to trigger equitable tolling. In particular, Petitioner has informed the court that he made immediate and ongoing efforts following the August 7, 2020 decision to institute the administrative appeals process, but was stymied because the notice failed to include an address to send his written request and $120 fee. Based on the court's own review of the August 7, 2020 notification of findings, the only address listed is the one on the first page of the notice: 1455 Frazee Road, Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92108-5418. According to Petitioner, he attempted to submit written notification of an appeal by going in person to the Frazee Road address, but these efforts were rejected, and an appeal never proceeded. Coupled with Petitioner's purported efforts to simultaneously appeal the DMV decision while defending himself in the related criminal DUI case, it is not unreasonable to conclude he may have been misled into believing that a court action related to the DMV decision (as opposed to further administrative action) should be delayed until after the DUI criminal case was resolved.

Accordingly, Respondent's demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3054676  18